At Mon, 12 Aug 2013 11:17:04 +0800,
Liu Yuan wrote:
>
> On Mon, Aug 12, 2013 at 05:04:12AM +0900, MORITA Kazutaka wrote:
> > > +
> > > +static void stat_list_print(void)
> > > +{
> > > + struct graph_stat_entry *entry;
> > > +
> > > + list_for_each_entry(entry, &stat_list, list) {
> > > + float f = (float)entry->duration / 1000000000;
> > > + float pf = (float)entry->duration / entry->nr_calls / 1000;
> > > +
> > > + printf("%-*s| %-10"PRIu32" | %-16f| %-16f\n", TRACE_FNAME_LEN,
> > > + entry->fname, entry->nr_calls, f, pf);
> >
> > I prefer a right-aligned number. In addition, the default number of
> > digits after the decimal point looks long to me. Then the format
> > string is like "%-*s| %10"PRIu32" |%16.3f |%16.3f \n".
> >
> > I wonder if we can use the same format as the existing tool's one?
> > E.g. gprof output is
> >
> > http://sourceware.org/binutils/docs/gprof/Flat-Profile.html#Flat-Profile
> >
> > I think it'd be great if we can have the "self seconds" column to
> > investigate a bottleneck.
>
> 'Total Time' is 'self seconds'. The gprof format looks obscure and redundant.
> I think total time, time per call, call nr, name is good enough.
I think 'Total TIme' is 'cumulative seconds'. It includes the time
spent by internally called functions, too.
Thanks,
Kazutaka
|
|